In our opinion: Despite public awareness, DUI fatalities are rising

Comments

For me, the passage of time is marked by seminal events. Graduation, marriage,
the birth of children,a new beginning, a new job. Perhaps a foundation upon
which to build a better life, to sustain hope and faith in the future.

In May 2011, all of that changed. On a Sunday morning, my son was hit by a
drunk driver. He died eight days later, and was buried in Provo,the city of his
birth. Now, time is marked from those terrible days. Sorrow and loss have
replaced hope and faith. Coping, struggling to forgive, and move on seem as
distant now as they were the day he died.

I'm not ignorant of
the Savior and assurance in the resurrection. I firmly believe I will see my
son again. But a final solution to the slaughter caused by DUI's escapes
me. So does relief from the heartache and loss my children and grandchildren
will carry for the rest of their lives caused by this savage, selfish act.

Perhaps a solution will only come when legislators and alcohol
profiteers are forced to look on in horror as their loved ones die from drunk
drivers.

toosmartforyouFarmington, UT

Oct. 24, 2012 9:24 a.m.

@ Hutterite

Trying to justify DUI's by using gun deaths is a
smoke screen. (And you know it.) I did not say you shouldn't be allowed to
drink; only that DUI should not be tolerated. Read again my post, please.

I don't know why "responsible drinkers" are not up in arms
about DUI, too.

With respect to me becoming "snotty" because
I "can't drink" you have absolutely no clue.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

Oct. 23, 2012 12:27 p.m.

@Mountanman"4 million Americans will be victims of drunk drivers this
year which means your odds of being a victim is about 30% if we consider that
there are about 130 million drivers on the roads."

What the...
Okay first off, there are not 4 million Americans who are victims of drunk
drivers each year. Secondly 4 million out of 130 million is not 30%. This math
is so awful I'd think you were drinking while commenting.

@Rifleman"You more likely to be murdered there"

The
homicide rate spiked in Chicago after their gun ban was struck down.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

Oct. 23, 2012 12:21 p.m.

@Mountanman"Tell that to a victim's family and see if they think
its inflammatory hyperbole!"

By your logic people who own guns
are killing everyone and it's totally cool to lump responsible drinkers/gun
owners in with the ones that end up running someone over or shooting someone.

No, but we can enforce DUI laws and put the
offenders in jail ..... where they belong, and where they can't hurt or
kill anybody.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

Oct. 23, 2012 8:49 a.m.

Re: ". . . you're not going to prevent me from drinking."

I don't want to. But I do want to make sure you pay the entire cost to
society of your avocation.

The industry that garners immense profit
from supplying you with poison must be required to compensate the inevitable
victims of your "fun."

That'll probably make your booze
cost a more, since the "hospitality" industry is unlikely to pay these
costs out of the obscene profits they've gotten used to.

But so
be it -- it's only fair.

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 10:47 p.m.

"DUI is totally avoidable and it should be totally, unequivically, and
absolutely unacceptable too. Why do we tolerate it?" Because gun deaths are
equally preventable, and we absolutely refuse to do anything about them. Smoking
related deaths, too. And those run into the hundreds of thousands per year. And
yet we can blissfully ignore them. The truth is we cherry pick what to get
worked up about and this is one of those items. Every preventible death creates
a victims' family. No one wants that. But you're getting all righteous
and snotty because you can't drink. Well, sorry about your luck. I'm
not going to drink and drive, and most people who drink are the same. But, like
gun owners and smokers, you're not going to prevent me from drinking.

OwlSalt Lake City, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 3:32 p.m.

Hutterite,

Yes you are. Driving, boating or flying impaired is a
fatal accident waiting to happen. DUI laws are strict in Europe and they are
effective.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 2:26 p.m.

Re: "More people are killed or murdered with guns than . . . by drivers
under the influence."

There were
12,252 gun-related homicides in 2005 [the latest year I could easily get my
hands on statistics]. 80% were by career criminals or gang members, 600 in valid
self- defense.

So, non-hard-core/gang-war homicides? Something in the
neighborhood of 2,500.

The 16K gun suicides, most committed under the
influence of intoxicants, are more properly attributed to "hospitality"
industry carnage, than to gun violence. There were also 16,885 alcohol-related
traffic deaths, 55% resulting in the impaired driver's death. As with gun
suicides, a drunk driver is usually as much a victim of the
"hospitality" industry as his victims.

So, with proper math,
we're left with about 2.5K real-people gun murders. "Hospitality"
industry carnage makes a large hole in 30K.

Every year.

And that doesn't even consider the 254,000 injuries and $3.2B in property
damage.

As per my last post, I can find a list of the top 15 killers in Utah, and the
term Accident is a catch all category. So DUI deaths are not in the top 15.
And coming in at 69 deaths, I doubt its in the top 25. That being said,
its awful to be a victim in an accident. Lets prevent things, but lets keep
them in perspective.

MidvalieanMIDVALE, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 1:21 p.m.

@procuradorfiscalWe cannot legislate to insure everyone uses everything
properly. We cannot legislate people to be smart. DUI's are a small
amount of deaths in Utah. Put it in perspective and we shouldn't be giving
any resources towards it. Lets see the list of what kills the most people
in Utah. Will DUI's even be on it?

toosmartforyouFarmington, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 1:13 p.m.

DUI is totally avoidable and it should be totally, unequivically, and absolutely
unacceptable too. Why do we tolerate it?

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 12:36 p.m.

Re: "Alcohol is a legal product that causes you no harm when used
responsibly."

True enough.

The real problem, though,
are the thoroughly horrendous, readily foreseeable, easily calculable,
statistically stable, human and financial costs of irresponsible use that are
inseparably connected to "responsible" alcohol consumption.

Those costs are borne today almost entirely by innocent victims of
irresponsible drinkers, many of whom -- at least in Utah -- don't share
"responsible" drinkers' enthusiasm for the practice. This,
notwithstanding the fact that the "hospitality" industry rakes in
blood-soaked billions in alcohol profits every year, almost none of which is
directed to the industry's victims.

It's tempting, in a
state where most don't drink, to just prohibit alcohol consumption, which
would, of course, decrease the carnage.

But there is another way.

Fix Utah's lax dram-shop laws, extending liability for injury by
drinkers to those who profit so handsomely by it.

That would provide,
not just relief to innocent victims, but meaningful incentives to those who
profit so handsomely by it, to stop the carnage.

The
majority of Utahns think you should hold the drunk driver and not Ford Motor
Company responsible for his misdeeds.

Likewise, if someone misuses a
firearm we think it is the individual and not Smith & Wesson who is
responsible. Luckily for us we have the 2nd Amendment and the US Supreme Court
on our side. People suffering from a gun phobia should move to Chicago. You
more likely to be murdered there but liberals are not known for using logic or
common sense.

RepublicantthinkstraighAnywhere but, Utah, Utah

Oct. 22, 2012 11:38 a.m.

More people are killed or murdered with guns than are killed or murdered by
drivers under the influence. Your logic of keeping guns (to protect your
family) when obviously guns provide more harm than good compared to alcohol, is
flawed to say the least.

RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

Oct. 22, 2012 11:36 a.m.

Re: JoeBlow Far East USA, SC"Alcohol is a legal product that causes
you no harm when used responsibly."

No one is questioning whether
alcohol is a legal product. If you want to drink it that's perfectly
acceptable. Just don't get behind the wheel after you do. Drunk drivers
belong in jail.

I never allow myself to get overly concerned when I
hear that a drunk driver has destroyed his (or her) car and is in the hospital.
It helps keep them off the street.

Twin LightsLouisville, KY

Oct. 22, 2012 11:25 a.m.

I think there is no doubt that some folks can drink responsibly.

There is also little doubt that a smaller portion of the population cannot.

Irrespective of local drinking laws (where I am some counties/cities are
"dry" or "wet") there is NO doubt that all of this changes once
someone gets behind the wheel.

At that point a private act becomes a
public danger. Prosecution of that crime should be harsh (because the fact that
no one got hurt/killed this time was just luck). And if you drive without a
license (because yours was revoked due to DUI) then you get to spend some time
thinking about it at public expense.

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

Oct. 22, 2012 11:18 a.m.

Mountan,

Looked at your statement

"4 million
Americans will be victims of drunk drivers this year which means your odds of
being a victim is about 30% if we consider that there are about 130 million
drivers on the roads."

Thought is sounded high. Cant find any
stats that even remotely come close to what you have written.

Could
you please cite the study, or tell me where you got these numbers?

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

Oct. 22, 2012 11:06 a.m.

Alcohol is a legal product that causes you no harm when used responsibly. You
can disagree, but my statement is supported by research.

Same with
guns and the same with cell phones and the same with prescription drugs.

Alcohol has a place in society. It always has. Remember when Jesus
turned water into wine?Beer came about because it was safer to store and
keep than water.

Your statements show an obvious prejudice against
alcohol. I assure you that I have a brain and enjoy alcohol responsibly. As do
most others.

Issues like this CAN be discussed using logic and reason
by logical and reasonable. You do not seem capable of doing that for whatever
reason (religion? personal incident?).

Cant have a reasonable
discussion with unreasonable people.

Let me ask you this. What would
you propose as a solution? Details please.

MountanmanHayden, ID

Oct. 22, 2012 10:37 a.m.

Joe Blow. 4 million Americans will be victims of drunk drivers this year which
means your odds of being a victim is about 30% if we consider that there are
about 130 million drivers on the roads. Statistically you are more likely to
drown in a swimming pool in America than be killed by a gun. Also, I use guns to
defend my family from criminals who will use guns to harm others. How can I
defend my family from drunk drivers?

JoeBlowFar East USA, SC

Oct. 22, 2012 10:18 a.m.

"Those of you who defend drinking alcohol are killing (literally) the rest
of us!"

That certainly sounds illogical.

Let me
try.

"those of you who defend gun ownership are killing
(literally) the rest of us!"

Nope. Doesn't make sense
either.

Both products, when used responsibly, have no ill effects
on ones self or society in general.

Hutterite. Tell that to a victim's family and see if they think its
inflammatory hyperbole!

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 9:42 a.m.

We who enjoy a drink are not out to kill 'the rest of you', any more
than someone with a handgun or an elderly person behind the wheel. And certainly
not nearly as much as smokers. This kind of inflammatory hyperbole is not
helpful. And for everyone who wants the old standby, the 'crack down'
or 'clamp down' of more laws, we need a different approach. It's
the old 'outlaws will still have guns' situation. Reasonable people
everywhere who drink to not drink and drive. The problem ones will do it without
license or insurance no matter what the laws. And these are the ones that end up
on the news.

OwlSalt Lake City, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 9:32 a.m.

It is tolerated because we allow it to be so. When our legislators work for the
people rather than the hospitality and liquor industry things will change.
Evidently people who are killed as the result of DUI are expendable, alcohol
profits are not. Their idea of stiff enforcement is "Please drink (get
drunk) responsibly."

MountanmanHayden, ID

Oct. 22, 2012 8:11 a.m.

Why do we continue to tolerate alcohol? Why would anyone with a brain drink
alcohol? Cause it's "fun"? Those of you who defend drinking alcohol
are killing (literally) the rest of us!

Twin LightsLouisville, KY

Oct. 22, 2012 8:06 a.m.

I cannot say how prosecution of DUI works in Utah. But in other states where I
have lived, it is incredibly lenient (unless there was a severe accident
involved).

Rifleman is correct. We need harsher sentencing.

In Europe, where driving is seen a more of a privilege than a right, the rules
are much stronger. We would do well to emulate them.

RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

Oct. 22, 2012 6:13 a.m.

The reason is that we, the people, continue to tolerate it. If we put our foot
down and insisted that drunk drivers serve a harsh jail sentence for a first
offense these needless deaths would drop drastically.

procuradorfiscalTooele, UT

Oct. 22, 2012 5:19 a.m.

Re: "The Legislature should . . . review and assess the statutes in place to
combat the problem . . . ."

It should. But it won't. Because
the legislature is in the pocket of the "hospitality" industry.

That industry, including brewers, distillers, and distributors, continues to
reap billions in blood money from their actions, while enjoying near-immunity,
at least in Utah, from the entirely predictable and easily preventable
consequences.

The ONLY solution that has even a ghost of a chance at
reducing the carnage is strengthening Utah's lax dram shop laws,
incentivizing "hospitality" industry responsibility for its insane
irresponsibility, requiring it to pay for the carnage its billions in profits
cause.

But, since that would require Utah legislators to take a step
or two away from the industry, we've come to expect little.

Legislators inevitably choose self interest over protection of the innocent
public they're elected to serve.